BOT places! List them here!

I just thought you might like to get some things off your chest. Now, there are a very people here who are finding fault with what I say. And there is noboy here who ha defended what Gabriele has written. It takes some getting through to her, but i think I'm makingnheadway. She now realises that traffic has never been a measure of popularity, regardless of the way LL used it. Now, Chip. Which part of that would you like to disagree with. May I hazzard a guess?

You don't disagree with any of it. You just don't like bots and you refuse to acknowledge the correctness off any reasoning that takes away one of things you like to throw out against bots. Am I right?

I've debated for a few pages with Gabriele, but she keeps chopping and changing, and doesn't seem to grasp the simple things, so maybe you would like to take over from her - huh? Perhaps you would like to claim that traffic measures popularity (that's what pages of discussion with Gabriele has been about), and then back up your reasoning. Huh? Or are you just here to post a little dig, and then run away without having the guts to back it up? Huh? What's it to be? Dig and run, or debate?

Yeah yeah. Now Sindy. Kindly explain to me how a measurement of avatar minutes on a parcel is a measurement of the parcel's popularity. And while doing it, remember that people go to parcels and dislike them, so the parcels are not popular with those people.

Here's a thought...

LL have said that the calculation of traffic is a complex formula, but we all know that it is the simplest calculations - avatar minutes - that's it. perhaps in the past, the traffic metric made an attempt at calculating something a bit different to what it is today.

Oh and btw. That KB quote is wrong about traffic. Nothing new there though.

I could keep debating you, Phil, but frankly the novelty of attempting to have a reasonable debate with someone who can't disagree without calling people dickheads, and who claims to have conclusively proven something that's patently untrue, wore off about twenty pages ago.

Chip - Id like to suggest one small edit to your post.

You didn't see the proof? Oh well. I guess you skipped a lot of posts. It's your loss. So you're going to rush in, get a dig in, and run away. Very brave of you

You know as well as I do that I only insult people who insult me first. You were one in this thread, Chris. If you don't like it, don't do it - you know it makes sense

Good call, Colette

The name is Chip. Perhaps you may also want to refrain from impugning other people's ability to read.

LOL. My mistake. But you are still one of the three.

Are you really going to run away, Chip? Don't you have the guts for it? Wouldn't that be a little embarrassing?

people spend time on parcels that interest them, and that is what boosts traffic.

Bots are there 24/7 and simply add traffic amounts, they are not actually there because it's an interesting or popular build.

Therefore the traffic they generate is false.

One sneaky trick LL could do is make it so that a single avatar only counts for traffic once a day... and not tell anyone about the change.

Would make the traffic stats a bit harder to game.

And Phil you admit to creating false traffic in order to boost the search results of your parcel.

So in effect you admit to defrauding all that see the traffic stats in the search window, because the majority of your traffic rating is from your bots.

That tactic might work if I was 9, but as a 42 year old your infantile playground swagger is wasted on me. Sorry.

I propose an experiment, Lets get Phil to take his 20 bots and park them in Chips store for a week...then see how much Chips sales go up and Phils go down....

my guess? Zero and Zero....

My guess is Chip's sales would not really go up, but Phil's sales would most definitely go down.

Since Chip's business is one of the old FICish places and Phil's is just Phil's.

I own about half of Chip's clothing selections LOL .. never stepped foot at Phil's place. I am probably banned like Moxz anyhow.

And people spend time on parcels that turn out to be of no interest to them. For them, the parcel is not popular, and that's the point I'm making. Traffic != popularity. That's what several pages of posts have been about. Eventually the other person admitted that she knew it all along, but there you go.

I do inflate the traffic numbers, but it isn't a deception, and it doesn't defraud anyone, because the avs are genuinely on the parcel all of the time, which is what the Places tab is about - Traffic. There is no part of the Places tab that is about only popular traffic as distinct from umpopular traffic, or only human traffic, or anything else. It is only av minutes.

I don't deny people the right to have different opinions of what's right and wrong. They are welcome to them. I have my opinions, and I'm happy with them. We are all entitled to our own opinions, and we should be content if others don't share our own. What we've been arguing/debating about in the last few pages is whether or not traffic is a measure of popularity, and it isn't a matter of opinion - it's a matter of fact, one way or the other. It took several pages of lengthy posts, but the other person eventually agreed. Actually she said she'd know it all along, so why she wanted to argue about it, I don't know.

People are welcome to believe that I deceive people. I'm content that I don't, and I'll debate it with them, but I don't insist that they must adopt my opinion. What I won't have without retaliating, are insults, but some people here just can't seem to help themselves.

He coulda worked for Bill Clinton.

It would be interesting, but I can tell you one half of the results already. Sales do go down when the bots are not there. I've actually tested it and, whilst I can't guarantee that my conclusionss are accurate, because daily sales vary quite a lot, it does look very much like the absence of the bots causes around a 20% drop in sales.

if i had the computers to run a bunch of bots, i'd totally do it too. Phil is right. higher traffic means more sales. it's not really rocket science.

Not nearly hard enough, though, to compensate for the hammering the new trafficbots would give the login servers and teleport-destination sims as a result of making such a change.

I'll just keep saying it: any measure of Traffic is a poor proxy for an even worse construct, "Popularity." I personally *like* the fact that the Traffic measure is now completely ineffective as any indicator of Popularity, because Popularity is at best irrelevant to any useful ranking of Search results, and more often than not, and indicator of places to avoid. And that will become increasingly true if SL concurrency ever starts growing again.

When people are new to SL they think-

High Traffic = lots of people and stuff to do.

They learn later that is not the case. And tend to echo the sentiments you express here.

Funnily enough back in the day it actually *was* the case and the high traffic places were actually popular.

Personally I would love to see them modify search so you can hit a check box to include picks and traffic (default off) in the results.

Which means they have to use keywords, but also make it against the TOS to game the keyword search with invalid keywords (limited to the parcel only, not prims on the parcel just the parcel)

Set up land with a checkbox system for keywords as well (furnature, clothing, etc. And stick and optional text box that again defaults to optional in the search... for them to add keywords. They can then add keywords to the list as needed down the road due to use)

I have them all in on a laptop. I've had all 20 in on standard viewers on the laptop too, but I often use one of them (a female) to test and tweak new animations in the beta grid, and 20 viewers means it's extremely slow for her. I sometimes do 5 or 10 viewers and the rest on thin programmes, and sometimes 1 viewer (her) and 19 thin programmes. But they are all on one laptop that has 2M of ram.

can you imagine the manhours it would take to police every single listing in search?

One av, one point, one day, sounds good, but it wouldn't have worked, because people would be creating them non-stop as far as they could, but your point about the logins would make such system really bad for server bashing.

i have a 2nd computer, and it hosts my campers who pay for my SL premium, land purchases, tier and all that free vendor space i give away every month. the computer is old and can't even use the regular client. it can barely handle the blind client, and can only host 2 windows and absolutely nothing else if they are on. i'd have to go shopping for a new puter, and there's no way i'm doing that just to run some bots. as much as i'd like to see more income, the headache does not seem worth the results. but that's just me. personally, i have no problem with you running your bots. they don't bother anyone except those who don't understand business practice, and that is super easy to ignore.

Could be even more restricted and limit it to one IP/hardware address or only paid accounts counting for the traffic numbers.

that would be so wrong, it might limit people's ability for their Traffic to count 21 times as much as someone elses.